Nessmines retweeted
Let me tell you about a cognitive bias called survivorship bias and how it affects the way we see and understand success.
We often study successful people, examine their habits, decisions and strategies, and assume those things explain why they succeeded. But we rarely study the people who made similar decisions, worked just as hard, took the same risks and still failed.
The problem is that we draw conclusions from the people who succeeded while ignoring the many others who followed similar paths but didn't get the same results. It makes success look more predictable than it actually is.
This is why I think we somehow overestimate the role of hard work, discipline and intelligence in success. Sometimes, what separates two people isn't necessarily intelligence, discipline or hard work. It could be timing, access to resources, circumstances or sheer luck.
There is a lot to learn from successful people, but there is also a lot to learn from those who tried and failed. Studying only the winners gives you an incomplete picture.
Nessmines retweeted
What an extraordinary exercise in selective storytelling.
You begin with Diana's death, as though William wasn't also a child walking behind his mother's coffin. Apparently, one brother's grief is a lifelong exemption from accountability, whilst the other's barely warrants a mention.
Then comes the Duchy of Cornwall, presented as though William won £22.9 million in a birth-order lottery. It is a centuries-old institution attached to the heir's constitutional position, with responsibilities, expenditure and taxation. Rather an inconvenient detail for your fairy tale.
As for security, Harry wasn't abandoned by Britain. His circumstances changed when he voluntarily ceased undertaking royal duties. RAVEC assessed the consequences, and the courts upheld the lawfulness of its decision. Police protection is determined by public-interest criteria, not purchased like a luxury concierge service.
And those £460,000 in legal costs? A rather curious example of victimhood. Losing litigation carries financial consequences. Even for princes.
The Netflix millions, the memoir, the interviews, the repeated public accusations against his family ... all remarkably absent from your assessment of his suffering. Yet William's income is apparently indispensable to it.
And Charles's cancer diagnosis? Turning a father's illness and the duration of private family meetings into a sentimental scoreboard is particularly distasteful.
Harry is entitled to love his family, fear for his children and grieve his mother. He is not entitled to have every consequence of his adult decisions repackaged as evidence of persecution.
Your closing question offers a false choice: a grieving son or a man responsible for his decisions. He can be both.
William inherited the responsibilities of the heir. Harry inherited the freedom to build a private life. The difficulty seems to arise whenever that freedom is expected to come without the privileges of the position he relinquished.
You haven't written a compelling account of injustice. You've written a melodrama in which Harry has all the feelings, William has all the obligations, and nobody is permitted to remember how the story actually unfolded.
Rather impressive orchestration. Shame about the missing facts.
Prince Harry quit royal life in 2020 and lost his police protection. Then his father, King Charles, got cancer. Harry flew 5,000 miles for 30 minutes with him. He sued for his protection and lost. He had to pay 90% of the lawyers Britain used against him: over £460,000.
He was 12 when his mother died in a car crash in Paris, chased by photographers. A few days later he walked behind her coffin with the whole world watching. "I don't think any child should be asked to do that," he said 20 years later.
He was the second son. In his memoir he writes that on the day he was born, his father said to Diana: "Wonderful! Now you've given me an heir and a spare. My work is done."
In January 2020 he and Meghan stepped back. Within weeks, Britain decided he would no longer get automatic police protection. He told Oprah his family "literally cut me off financially" in the first months of 2020. The only reason he could leave, he said, was the money his mother left him.
The money came fast. That same year, a Netflix deal reported at about $100 million. Later, a memoir that sold 3.2 million copies in its first week.
But his biggest fear, he told Oprah, was "history repeating itself." So he offered to pay for British police out of his own pocket. Britain said no. So he took his own country's government to court.
He lost in 2024.
He lost the appeal in 2025.
He was ordered to cover 90% of the government's legal costs.
He was asked to give up Frogmore Cottage, his home in Britain.
His kids went four years without seeing their grandfather.
And his father, he says, stopped speaking to him over it.
Now look at the money. Diana left about £13 million, most of it to her two sons. His older brother William now collects £22.9 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall. Under a charter from 1337, that estate only goes to the heir.
After the diagnosis, it took 19 months to get a second meeting with his father. The first one lasted 30 minutes. The second, 54. This July his kids finally saw their grandfather again.
Harry says he just wants his family safe in his own country. In the video below, hours after losing his appeal, he names the one thing he says he'll probably never forgive.
His critics say he chose to leave and should live with it. He cashed in on his family with Netflix and a book, they say, and still wants British taxpayers to guard him. A Spotify executive called him and Meghan "grifters" on air.
His brother gets £22.9 million a year for being born first. Harry, the spare, got a bill for over £460,000.
Is Prince Harry a man who chose to leave and should live with it, or a son whose mother died running from photographers and who just wants his kids safe?
Nessmines retweeted
Cardi B says some months cost her millions. She says the "family tax" is real, and she still told a relative: "I helped you move like five times. Settle."
She once said she spends about $3 million a month. "Don't come to me for a new dress," she says. "I'm not feeling bad for people anymore." One year, she says, $1 million went on car rides alone. Now she checks every account.
Her host called it family tax: when one person in a family makes it, the rest expect a share. Cardi agrees it exists. She says her limits are already set.
The case for Cardi: she earned it, she has already paid for a lot, and nobody is owed a new dress.
The case for the family: they were there before the money, and she admits the responsibility is real.
In the video below, she explains how she learned to say no.
If you make it big, do you owe your family a cut?
Nessmines retweeted
A very beautiful but toxic woman, she cheated on Laurence Fishburne countlessly to a point he went mad and had to go for rehab
Nessmines retweeted
This, from @ConradMBlack carries much truth, but will not be widely recognized any time soon.
Nessmines retweeted
Kelly’s super power is being able to jump in and out of a blend effortlessly. She complemented Monique without ruining her vibe the whole time.
Truly one of the best at it.
Nessmines retweeted
Spitting out Receipts! 🕵♀️
The Royal community on X is currently doing more fact-checking, digging up more receipts and producing more truthful information than the mainstream media! 😂
Some of these accounts deserve a place on the Royal Rota. In fact, they should probably be issuing the press briefings!
Meanwhile, certain royal correspondents seem to be permanently three steps behind, waiting for X to do their homework for them. 🤣
Perhaps the Palace needs to rethink its press credentials. The real investigative journalists might just be sitting behind anonymous profile pictures on X! 👑🍿
Nessmines retweeted
Lol. I actually adore Tia cuz no shade, my man cheating on me is also the least of my worries/not my darkest time, ngl.
Have y’all ever owed the IRS? Ask Robyn.
And I think Tia is def right here.
My man cheating <<<<<< You committing fraud
Unbalanced scale AF. LOL.
Et evidemment personne ne parle de racisme parce que ceux qui harcèlent le plus les enfants africains là bas, ce sont les afro américains. Ils imitent mm ton accent...bref...
Sur TikTok y’a plusieurs africains qui ce sont mis à parler de leur expérience. Et y’a tellement des témoignages effrayants comme cette vidéo. T’as juste pas envie de croire que les gens puissent avoir autant de haine.
92
Nessmines retweeted
Sur TikTok y’a plusieurs africains qui ce sont mis à parler de leur expérience. Et y’a tellement des témoignages effrayants comme cette vidéo. T’as juste pas envie de croire que les gens puissent avoir autant de haine.
Nessmines retweeted
atlanta at its best gave us read-offs like this that were fully off the dome. idk why y’all act otherwise. 😭
Nessmines retweeted
Chris Rock talks about how Brad Pitt walks into a party and every woman instantly takes a step back from whoever she’s talking to, keeping track of exactly where he is like a pitbull loose in the neighborhood, only to start acting normal again the second he leaves
"I remember being at a party. You ever been in a room with fucking Pitt, man? When Brad Pitt walks in the room, every woman takes a step and a half back from whatever guy she's talking to, like a pitbull getting loose in the neighborhood, knowing exactly where he is so she doesn't fuck it up over Chris Rock."
"Then he gets a woman or leaves the party, and the girl starts talking to you normal again. Yeah, they they they kind of let you know like, hey, if he even looks this way, Yeah. I'm going to kick you down a flight of stairs.
Nessmines retweeted
She said she was going to Lagos to go for her cousins birthday party because she came from the Uk and her family members would be there. So I had to drop her off at the airport cos she said her cousin brother had booked her flight to lagos.
Two days later, a guy texted me saying
Nessmines retweeted
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
“I can’t wait to wake up tomorrow and feel like I’ve been gang-raped!”
MeToo hoaxer Kristin Knouse is confronted with her own crude texts to David Sabatini. She withheld these texts initially until the defamation lawsuit against her exposed them. (Follow me for more exclusives from this case.)
Nessmines retweeted
Sabatini Case: Who Is the Victim & Who Is the Predator?
Watching Kristin Knouse's deposition videos is shocking on so many levels. I hope more people take the time to watch them.
Hearing Knouse questioned about her own text messages, her actions, and her explanations is a powerful reminder that how someone presents themselves isn't necessarily who they are.
Knouse claimed that her relationship with David Sabatini, while outwardly consensual, was actually coercive because of a severe power imbalance. She alleged that Sabatini used his authority as a mentor, thesis committee advisor, fellowship director, and laboratory head to groom and pressure her into a sexual relationship.
But the text messages presented in these deposition clips paint a very different picture of the personal dynamics between them.
In one exchange, Knouse describes going to Sabatini's room at 2 a.m. after partying to wake him up for sex. She jokes, "In hindsight it was quite aggressive / hetoo."
When questioned, she explains that it was simply a joke about her being more forward in that encounter, going to his room rather than having him come to her apartment.
In another exchange, she writes, "I can't wait to wake up tomorrow and feel like I've been gang-raped."
Her explanation? She was talking about doing squats at the gym and anticipating how sore she'd be the next morning.
Seriously?
I find these explanations difficult to believe, particularly when considered alongside the other exchanges. To me, the language suggests a sexually assertive woman who was comfortable taking the initiative and potentially enjoyed rough sex play. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either.
And being sexually assertive doesn't automatically mean someone cannot be coerced or victimized. But when the central allegation involves a claimed imbalance of power, these communications deserve serious scrutiny.
One message, in particular, seems to capture her attitude toward the relationship: "I know what I want and I go after it."
Sabatini clearly held more institutional authority. But professional authority doesn't necessarily translate into psychological, emotional, or sexual dominance within a relationship.
Power isn't always held by the person with the higher title. Someone in a seemingly subordinate position can exercise considerable influence over someone who outranks them. Sex, intimacy, emotional attachment, manipulation, and even the threat of exposure can all become tools for gaining leverage and shifting the balance of power.
People sometimes use sex to gain influence, advance their ambitions, or secure advantages they might not otherwise have. And someone who holds considerable professional power can still be vulnerable to manipulation in their personal relationships.
That's why I find the assumption that Sabatini's professional authority automatically made Knouse the powerless party so problematic. The relevant question is not simply who held the higher position, but who actually exercised influence, how they exercised it, and whether coercion occurred.
The Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde nature of this case doesn't surprise me nearly as much as the investigation itself.
How was Knouse able to selectively provide text messages that supported her allegations without the broader exchanges receiving greater scrutiny? Why weren't the other communications examined more closely before decisions were made that devastated Sabatini's career?
This brings me back to something I've noticed repeatedly in these cases.
We have a tendency to judge credibility by how someone presents rather than what the evidence shows.
Gender certainly plays a role, but so do intelligence, attractiveness, education, professional accomplishments, social standing, and how other people perceive someone.
We've seen similar battles over credibility and public perception in cases involving Amber Heard, Blake Lively, Nikki Yovino, and others. These cases have very different facts and outcomes, but they demonstrate how quickly people form opinions about who is the victim and who is the villain.
And once that narrative takes hold, getting people to reconsider can be nearly impossible.
"Believe the victim" sounds compassionate, but it becomes dangerous when we've already decided who the victim is before establishing what actually happened.
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
“I can’t wait to wake up tomorrow and feel like I’ve been gang-raped!”
MeToo hoaxer Kristin Knouse is confronted with her own crude texts to David Sabatini. She withheld these texts initially until the defamation lawsuit against her exposed them. (Follow me for more exclusives from this case.)
